Friday, April 16, 2010

There's other stuff discovered by the poll, such as the fact that the Tea Party folks are generally better-educated than the general population. Whereas only 29% of Tea Party folks have a college education, 47% of "other Americans" don't.

Hmm. And leftists like to arrogantly claim that "liberals" are "more intelligent" than "conservatives"? What a laugh!

Oh, and, of course Obama's a socialist. The majority is in consensus on this!

12 comments:

1) It was a telephone survey, the sampling issues with regards to the non-inclusion of young, educated, tech-saavy voters who tend to be cell-only and who have much different political leanings than the broader population at large have been pointed out before.

2)"more toward socialism" =/= "socialist". It is a relative measure, and one that I would agree with considering how radically unregulated the American marketplace is. A mixed market economy is certainly "more towards socialism" than the one that has existed in the U.S. for quite some time, but that hardly makes it objectively socialist. When you fail to make that distinction, you misrepresent what the poll both asked people and what the results were. That's yet another illustration of why the young, educated demographic that tends to be under-represented from these kinds of polls has is also not very well represented within the tea-party movement itself. Continuing to scream that "Obama's a socialist" or worse says more about your grasp of the construct than it does Obama's positions themselves. ...As does the appeal to U.S. telephone polling being proof of anything. Like both of those hysterically inaccurate beliefs changed with time and exposure to facts/reality, so too will this. That's the problem with histrionic spin: It has a short shelf-life.

Did you see it???!!!! There it is again. The employment of relativism for socio/political justification. Oh mirth! We know the plan and we know the tricks. Mixed market economy indeed. What a relatively convenient term. If the state controls 1% of the economy it is by definition a mixed market. Yes and Audrey II will use this relative term right up through 99% government control. "Feed ME" O.K. Audrey EAT THIS! Pre BO, the government controlled 20% of the economy. Now with Freddie and Fannie, GM, Citi et al, and HEALTHCARE (17%) that's 50% of the U.S. market. This does not include all the student loans. When with objectivity will you allow the term socialist? AND NOW EAT THIS:http://biggovernment.com/rbidinotto/2010/04/16/a-government-takeover-of-the-financial-sector/Oh yes! And no, this is not socialism. This is a Marxist regime. For the first time in history the Fed. is being sued for land control. Why? Utah, in particular smells Communism. But there's a problem; none of it, NONE OF IT is sustainable. Even Marxist extremists want to survive. This path is a path to destruction, and the bastard knows it. ∞ ≠ ø ☺

No one's employing relativism. I'm simply rejecting the absurdly binary notion that anything less than the relatively unregulated markets that existed in the U.S. = socialism. The U.S. is and has been a relative outlier when it comes to degree of regulation and government involvement in the markets.

I'm also appealing to an objective defintion of socialism. The passage of health insurance reform by no reasonable means can be said to mean that the U.S. government now has created "public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources", or "an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation".

It takes more than a healthy dose of histrionics to claim that the Obama administrations policies or actions show an advocacy of "nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange or even "state control of capital within the framework of a market economy".

Again, screeching "socialism" / "communism" / "Marxism" does more to illustrate a populist ignorance of those constructs than it does to say much of anything about either Health Insurance Reform or the proposed financial regulation. Branding Obama a Socialist/Marxist/Communist on a path to destruction has untenable external consistency applications. The reforms that have taken place in the U.S. are relatively mild in comparison to economies the world round, the vast majority of which have not become the apocalyptic hell-holes that the radical right has been prophesizing. Hayek and Friedman have been shown to be wrong, and their extremist conflation of Keynesian economic theory with a slippery-slope into socialism has not withstood the test of history. Time to take a deep breath, adopt a modicum of self-awareness, put aside the hysterical Breitbart op-eds and acknowledge that this routine has been taken far past its breaking point.

Glastnost,

No one said they "can't seem to get polled". My comment specifically identified a particular survey methodology (see the first 5 words of my above reply).

C.S. Thanks for that constructive and thoughtful reply. It does tend to lose some of its relevance when we're not talking about discrimination against middle easterners.

Oh, you mean like the discrimination against Israelis? Of course, the whole world, particularly the Muslim World, particularly the "refugees" in "Palestine", is discriminating against them, and this is terrible! I'm glad you agree!

BTW, "take a camel", you need to look at the entire exchange surrounding that, to see that the girl and her extreme-left-wing brethren in the room brought the sarcastic response upon themselves, with their hateful, intolerant, aggressive behavior towards Ms. Coulter. Besides, it appears likely that the "camel" remark was actually Kathy Shaidle's, which Ann heard, and found it convenient to use in a sarcastic response, just to get the idiots in the room to quit badgering her like a bunch of hatefully prejudiced left-wing assholes.

Sheesh. Many supremacist Muslims and "progressives" as well as Big Media types are always taking things out of context, the wrong way, not thinking at all. Such thin skins. And who gets blamed for their mental disorders? People with brains!

"Take a camel", was a sarcastic way of saying "Ok, that's enough, quit being intolerant and let me speak; quit badgering me with that stupid question about modes of transportation; it's off-topic! You know you're being abusive of me because you're prejudiced towards me and won't let me explain anything at all, not that you'd understand, 'cause you're not using your brains anyway, and you're free to leave, anyway, if you're not going to understand a damn thing I say".

O.K. Audrey. 1: So in your initial response to the article C.S. posted <"more toward socialism" =/= "socialist". It is a relative measure....> You are employing relativism in your response to the article which also used relativism in the phrase "toward socialism" I chose to define the parameters and show by percentage the radical departure we have taken from what you describe as "relatively" uncontrolled markets. An uptake of 30% of the market in less than a year in a half is mind boggling.2. < I'm simply rejecting the absurdly binary notion that anything less than the relatively unregulated markets that existed in the U.S. = socialism. The U.S. is and has been a relative outlier when it comes to degree of regulation and government involvement in the markets.>My response again defined the relativism. Not binary at all. That part of your premise, is an oxymoron. Yes the U.S. has been an outlier. It is for that reason we are the wealthy superpower that we are. We spend BILLIONS developing other countries, defending freedoms, stopping genocide, etc. This is a free market society that gives and gives to the WORLD. Why ruin it?Your first definition of socialism is bazaar. <"Public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources", > 'Direct worker ownership' can include employee owned capitalist ventures and 'production and allocation of resources' does not include wealth. This definition has been corrupted and I dismiss it. As for the second, this is basically a direct quote from Marx. In it, he eliminates any concept of market value, markets, and is typically vague about resource allocation. Each according to his need stems from it. But the determinant process of allocation is always missing. As we are capitalist one must include the concept of capital and wealth in the definition (can’t ignore Adam Smith.) Socialism is the intermediary step between Capitalism and communism where controls over the means of production of wealth are transferred (presumably) to one’s own government. I think that’s solid. And, by the way, that is exactly what is going on. (continue, sorry)

(continued)There are no histrionics here. I will note the irony of this coming from one who name’s herself after a part in a play. Nationalization of many banks took place during the first bailout. Many refused due to the strings attached. Many others took the money only for a short while and had to sue to pay back. Citi is still trying to get off the hook. They are selling off assets. 70% of all home loans are now federally controlled. The debt is being monetized. G.M. and G.E. are now govt. subsidiaries. Most student loans were assumed when the healthcare bill passed. The healthcare industry is 1/6 of the economy. The takeover interrupts the flow of the distribution of capital and wealth in a very real way. Regulations will attempt to fix prices to fit within budgetary constraints. And since the government is effectively paying the insurance companies through which all bills flow they control the wealth, means of production be dammed. This surpasses the continuum of socialism-Marxism-communism. This is fascism. Marx believed in working class members uniting and creating social change. BUT he felt that socialism from above was elitist. In fact this serves as a good working definition for fascism. Socialism from above.Lastly, Keynesian theory is acceptable to me but incorrect. Obama is no Keynesian so I don’t understand the relevance here. Taxes will rise sharply for the wealthy who pay so much already and business taxes also rise which is a killer. The stimulus money will only serve to sure up his position with unions and favored politicians. No real jobs grown here and you know it. Obama is no Keynesian, he only seeks to weaken the economy. I disagree with Keynesian economics in that in a recession I believe that markets largely right themselves without government spending. So for me in a recession I like to see less spending and less taxes and always spend less than you take in so government unemployment is not an issue.I’m done Audrey. I was nice. There’ll be a quiz on Monday. ∞ ≠ ø ☺

Ouch... jungle lady finds Anon who can write volumes just like her.Where are uuuuuu jungle gal? Come hither and respond to Anon.

Hey Audrey, come over and see how I "tried" to translate this sentence in your kind of "jungle" language.

ordinary sentence: "My name is enormous thriving plants"

translated to jungle language: "At birth it was bestowed on me by the human species who I deem to have given me their combined DNA without my solemn request for such elements in the makeup of my individuality, the most absurd and unbecoming of titles so as to make me beholden to a mandate about gigantic living green things that my fervent wish and hope hereforth is that they will survive as I fully intend to feed them purified drops of the oceanic wealth of enormous load of salty tears to guarantee their survival in this purely evil and corrupted world of the righteous people I have been condemned to thrive in, in a green, green way."

Nope, no AUDREY II. I thought on Earth Day for sure, but no.O.K., I just peeked at her site. She's now learned to use the word relativism appropriately and is sniping at C.S. over a birther post. Hmmmm. She edits the comments... and zzzzzz..zzz.zzzz∞ ≠ ø ☺